Crop politics

Government subsidies promote corn over common sense

This is harvest season in the heartland, and another big corn crop is pouring into the bins. Amid the abundance, however, trouble lurks.

Because of government policies that promote turning corn into ethanol fuel for cars, farmers have taken to planting as much corn as possible.

Corn is America's biggest cash crop by far, and across most of the Midwest it is the most profitable by far. Because roughly 40 percent of the crop is being diverted into gas tanks, a bushel of corn fetches a much higher price today than it did before the government-subsidized ethanol boom.

Even when prices drop during abundant harvests, as they have in recent weeks, the profits for an acre of corn often still exceed those for soybeans, wheat and other alternative crops that might be grown on the same highly productive land.

No surprise, the government's pro-corn agenda has produced unwanted side effects. Livestock producers who depend on corn for animal feed have cut back their herds. That's a big reason why meat is more expensive in grocery stores and restaurants these days.

Another unwelcome hazard of government interference in the marketplace is a bacteria that survives primarily in the residue of stalks and leaves left over after a farmer harvests a cornfield. Historically, Goss's Wilt infected a relatively small part of the grain belt: Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota were high-risk areas. Today, the area at high risk for this potentially devastating plant disease extends all the way east through Iowa and northern Illinois into Indiana.

Certain hybrid seeds have proved susceptible to Goss's Wilt. But another big reason for its spread is the practice of planting corn on the same ground year after year. The easiest way to put a stop to the spread of Goss's Wilt is to plant soybeans, alfalfa or some other crop that isn't a host to it.

Farmers have known about the benefits of rotating crops since the dawn of agriculture. The federal government has made corn cultivation so lucrative that those time-honored lessons are being set aside. Planting "corn-on-corn" invites a crop disease epidemic. It would behoove the federal government to provide an incentive for sound stewardship of Midwest farmland, which is one of America's greatest natural assets.

Just the opposite is occurring.

Under pressure from the ethanol lobby, the federal government has continued to boost the amount of corn fuel that it requires to be mixed in with the nation's gasoline supply. This so-called "renewable fuel standard" forces consumers to buy ever-increasing amounts of ethanol. The standard was intended to promote the development of alternative feedstocks to produce ethanol. Yet those alternatives have not worked out in commercially viable quantities. The government requirement for more ethanol is being met with more (and more) corn.

Similarly, the House and Senate proposals for the periodic renewal of farm policy legislation (known as the farm bill) have included a huge expansion of federally subsidized crop insurance.

The "crop insurance" name is misleading: At one time, crop insurance actually insured the crops of participating farmers against drought, floods and other extreme hazards. The program has expanded into a vast giveaway that enables farmers to lock in their revenues come what may. This taxpayer-funded insurance in effect eliminates the business risk that farmers would face from a failed crop. Expanding the program with billions of additional dollars, as lawmakers have set out to do, would give farmers another reason to plant more (and more) corn without regard to potential consequences.

The solution to this perverse state of affairs is simple: Congress needs to eliminate the renewable fuel standard. It needs to cut back, rather than expand, the out-of-control crop insurance program.

Of course Congress at the moment is busy not doing its job, having presided over the first partial government shutdown in 17 years. When — someday — Congress reconvenes, it is likely to consider these matters, if only to address the short-term negative effects of having allowed the most recent extension of the farm bill to expire Sept. 30.

Congress, get back to work and get real: Subsidizing ethanol at such enormous levels and guaranteeing the revenues of individual farms makes no economic sense — and may be setting up the U.S. corn crop for a disease-ridden future.